NORTHAMPTON - After nearly ninety minutes of disagreement and argument the Northampton City Council voted Thursday night to refer a controversial resolution supporting a ban on expanded surveillance in the city's downtown area to two government committees for further review.

The non-binding resolution was introduced in tandem with a binding ordinance that would ban further installment of surveillance equipment in the city's downtown.

Both members of the public who attended Thursday's meeting and members of the Council strongly disagreed with one another about the contents of the resolution, however.

A lengthy public comment period saw conflicting stances from community members, many of whom felt that that the cameras would lead to invasions of privacy while others saw the security cameras as a good resource for law enforcement and a necessary protection for local businesses.

Suzanne Beck appeared Thursday evening representing the Greater Northampton Chamber of Commerce and asked that the Council vote against the resolution, asking for "more dialogue" on the issue of surveillance.

Beck said she had attended a recent meeting of local business owners who were concerned about theft and drug use in the downtown area. "I think their input and perspective is important to hear," she said, characterizing the resolution and ordinance as "closing the door on a well considered recommendation by the police department."

However, another Northampton resident, Julia Cox, said it was inappropriate that public tax dollars go towards funding security for private businesses. Cox said if the businesses wanted further security they "should fund it themselves."

When public comment was over, Council officials found themselves equally at odds with each other.

In particular, Ward 5 Councilor David Murphy said that he felt passing the resolution would "prejudice" the legislative process surrounding the ordinance as well as a public conversation surrounding further surveillance.

Murphy and other critics of the resolution felt that not enough had been done to include the police department as well as the rest of the public in the conversation.

"It prejudices the ordinance process to do a resolution now and then later refer an ordinance to committee," Murphy remarked, saying instead he'd like to see the ordinance process "run its course" so that public comment and committee decision-making could proceed uninhibited by the Council's stance.

Murphy initially pushed to pursue a continuance of the resolution, which would have tabled a presentation and vote on it until after the ordinance had passed through various committees, but later withdrew the motion in favor of a referral of the resolution to the city's Legislative Matters and City Services Committees, along with the ordinance.

Murphy received hisses from audience members after he addressed them, stating: "It says [in the resolution] people have the right to not be constantly surveilled. You are already, folks. The cameras are everywhere. This is not going to make a big difference."

O'Donnell characterized further review of the resolution as an abdication of control over the legislative process to the city's executive offices.

"I think we need to show leadership on this issue," he said.

However, Murphy shot back that to refer the resolution was "honoring" the legislative process, not abdication.

Councilor Dennis Bidwell criticized the resolution, saying he'd like to see a larger effort to understand the effects of surveillance on communities and crime rates--stating that the resolution didn't substantiate its claims with facts.

O'Donnell further defended his resolution, saying there was a difference between what's practically effective versus what is "morally right."

"When I hear that we're going to wait and see if surveillance is effective at deterring crime, I can tell you something that would be effective at deterring crime: a curfew."

"I'm not trying to be incendiary," he said. "If everybody had to go to their house at 8 p.m., crime would drop--but it's wrong."

Split down the middle, the Council ultimately voted 5-4 to refer both the resolution and the ordinance to the city's Legislative Matters and City Services Committees.

The resolution will be discussed at the City Services Commitee meeting on Oct. 2nd.